Complainant, a Belgian registered company, has acquired a trading
reputation under its corporate name SOLVAY and has numerous registrations
of the trade mark dating back at least from 1972.

Respondent, based in Netherlands, registered the domain name in issue,
"solvay.net" in 1999. Shortly after registration, Respondent offered
to sell "solvay.net" to Complainant and stated in part:- "In the past,
we have bought some domains, including www.solvay.net. Because Solvay needs
this name for online sales and exclusivity (sic) we want to sell this name
at a reasonable price ".

Respondent made no submissions to the proceedings.

Held, Name transferred to Complainant.

The domain name "solvay.net" is identical to the trade mark "Solvay".

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the
domain name as Respondent has imputed knowledge of the existence of Complainant's
trade mark rights.

The following evidence suggests that the domain name has been registered
and is being used in bad faith: (1) Respondent has spontaneously
offered the name to Complainant for purchase; (2) the short period of time
between the domain name registration and the offer to Complainant; (3)
the stated price would exceed normal out of pocket expenses; (4) Respondent
has at no time contested Complainants trade marks and despite the cease
and desist letter reiterated its offer of sale; and (5) the domain name
was offered for sale to the world at large.

Policies referred to

Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy

Panel Decision referred to--

Clive Duncan Thorne, Panelist: -

1. The Parties The Complainant is Solvay S.A. a Belgian registered company of
Rue de Ransbeek 310, 120 Brussels, Belgium. The Respondent is IMS Marketing
Services of Ambachtslaan 144, NL-5506 AK Veldhoven, The Netherlands. The
Complainant is represented by Mr. Eugene Dufrasne, head of the complainants
intellectual property department.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar The domain name the subject of the complaint is "solvay.net".
The Registrar of the domain name is Network Solutions Inc. of 505 Huntmar
Park Drive, Herndon, Virginia 20170, USA.

3. Procedural Issue The complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation
Center on 18 April 2000 and assigned the case number D2000-0307.
On 25 April the Complainant was notified of a deficiency in its
complaint in that: the complaint did not specify a method of communication
for electronic-only case-related communications as required by the Rules,
(paragraph 3(b)(iii)), the complaint does not include a submission by the
Complainant to the jurisdiction of the courts in at least one specified
Mutual Jurisdiction (paragraph 3(b)(viii)) and the complaint had not been
signed by the Complainant or his authorised representative as required
by the Rules (paragraph 3(b)(xiv)). The deficiency in the complaint was
corrected by the Complainant by notice dated 27 April 2000. In the Panels
view the Complainant has in amending the complaint complied with the formal
requirements set out in Rule 3.
Notification of the complaint and commencement of the administrative
proceedings was given to the Respondent by notice dated 4 May 2000. The
notification of complaint and commencement of administrative proceeding,
corrective complaint and complaint deficiency notification were sent by
email to the Respondent at the three email addresses given in the complaint.
The hard copy of the document was also transmitted by courier and the panel
has seen the courier receipt. The Panel is satisfied that Rule 2(a) has
been complied with and that Notice of the complaint has been given to the
Respondent in accordance with the Rules.
It appears that no response was received by the expiry of the
twenty day deadline on 23 May. Notification of the Respondents default
was given on 25 May 2000 by fax sent to the Respondent on fax number 314
0255 6425, by email at the four addresses given in the complaint, by courier
and by post. The Panel has seen a copy of the courier acknowledgement and
postal receipt. The Panel is therefore satisfied that the notification
of the Respondents default was effectively given under the Rules.
In accordance with the Rules an Administrative Panel was appointed
consisting of a single panelist Mr. Clive Duncan Thorne. The Panelist has
submitted a statement of acceptance and declaration of impartiality and
independence. The date scheduled for the Panels decision is 19 June 2000.
The Panel is unaware of any further submissions having been served by either
the Respondent of the Complainant.

4. Factual BackgroundThe complainant is a Belgian Societe Anonym trading under the name
"SOLVAY". It has numerous registrations of the trade mark "Solvay" throughout
the world. The Panel has seen annexed to the complaint "Annex C" a list
of the registrations of the trade mark in almost 100 countries in a number
of classifications. Copies of some of these trade mark registrations have
also been annexed to the complaint. The registrations from the list exhibited
as "Annex C" appear to have been filed upon various dates in different
jurisdictions dating back at least from 1972. The Panel is therefore satisfied
that the Complainant is well known throughout the world and has acquired
a trading reputation under its corporate name SOLVAY and as a result of
trading in numerous countries of the world using the trade mark "Solvay".
The history of the present dispute is as follows. On 22 December 1999
the Respondent reserved the domain name "solvay.net". On 24 January 2000
the Complainant received an email from the Respondent offering to sell
the domain name "solvay.net" to the Complainant. The email which is annexed
D1 to the complaint states as follows:-
"In the past, we have bought some domains, including www.solvay.net.
Because Solvay needs this name for online sales and exclusivity (sic) we
want to sell this name at a reasonable price. You can give us an offer
(reasonable) and you are owner of the domain. We do not want to go to court
and so we accept a normal price".
On 3 February 2000 the Complainant collected certain information
regarding the Respondent and attempted to access "www.solvay.net" and in
so doing reached the web site of IMS Marketing Services, the owner of the
domain name and present Respondent. The Complainant noted on this occasion
that the Respondent was offering numerous domain names on which some of
them corresponded to well known trade marks like "RAYBAN", "CHRISTIANDIOR"
and "POLAROID".
Evidence came to the Complainant that on 21 February a private
individual, a Mr. Pierre Drijvers had offered to buy the domain name from
the Respondent. The same day the Respondent responded to Mr. Drijvers that
the name was still for sale for a price of 6,500 Euro. The Complainant
has drawn the Panels attention to the fact that the Respondent did not
express any concern as to whether or not he had a legitimate interest in
the buyer to acquire the domain name.
On 23 February 2000 the Complainant sent a registered letter
and email "Annex D5" requesting transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.
The Respondent "Annex D6" responded the same day and indicated that its:-
"Our goal with the domain www.solvay.net is to build a web site
with the theme Sunny Vacation Experiences (sic) (-----). We are always
prepared to sell a domain at a certain price if we can make enough profit."

5. Parties ContentionsThe Respondent, who has the burden of proof in the administrative proceedings
submits:-
(i) The domain name "solvay.net" is identical to trade mark registrations
owned by the Complainant and corresponds to the corporate name of the Complainant.
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect
of the domain name "solvay.net".
(iii) The domain name "solvay.net" has been registered and used in
bad faith.
In the absence of a response from the Respondent there are of course
no submissions to counter the Complainants submissions. The Panel therefore
has no alternative but to determine the case on the basis of the Complainants
submissions only and to determine whether the Complainant has established
its complaint.
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade
mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Panel accepts that the Complainant trades as Solvay S.A. and that
it has numerous trade mark registrations for "Solvay". The Panel therefore
finds that the domain name "solvay.net" is identical to the trade mark
"Solvay".
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect
of the domain name.
In support of this submission the Complainant asserts that the Respondent
has no corporate name, no company and no products nor any kind of services
using the name "SOLVAY". It is true that no evidence of use of the domain
name "solvay.net" has been adduced by the Respondent. It should be noted
that the Respondents email of 24 January 2000 (Annex D1) states that "Solvay
needs domain name for online sales and exclusivity". The Panel regards
this as an admission that the Respondent has no rights nor legitimate interests
in respect of the domain name. The Panel also accepts that as can be seen
from "Annex C" that the Complainant has Benelux registrations for the trade
mark "SOLVAY". The Panel takes the view that the Respondent has imputed
knowledge of the existence of these trade mark rights. The Panel therefore
finds that the Complainant has proved that the Respondent has no rights
or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name.
(iii) The domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.
The Complainant submits that bad faith on the part of the Respondent
is proved by the fact that the Respondent has registered the domain name
with the primary purpose of selling it to the Complainant and in particular
relies upon the following facts:-
(a) The fact that the Respondent has spontaneously offered the name
to the Complainant for purchase.
(b) The short period of time between the domain name registration and
the offer to the Complainant.
(c) The fact that the states price of 6,500 Euro would exceed normal
out of pocket expenses.
(d) The fact that the Respondent has at no time contested the Complainants
trade marks and despite the cease and desist letter reiterated its offer
of sale.
(e) The fact that the domain name was offered for sale to the world
at large.
In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Rules the Panel finds that
this evidence shows that the Respondent has registered or acquired the
domain name "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise
transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the
owner of the trade mark or service mark ------ for valuable consideration
in excess of documented out of pocket costs". The Panel therefore finds
that the Complainant has succeeded in proving that the domain name has
been registered and is being used in bad faith.
It follows and the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved
its three submissions in accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Rules and
that accordingly the Complainant has succeeded in its complaint.
6. DecisionIn accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute
Resolution Policy the Panel requires that the domain name "solvay.net"
be transferred to the Complainant.

Clive Duncan Thorne
Presiding Panelist
Dated June 19, 2000

Domain
Name Transferred

Generic selectors

Exact matches only

Exact matches only

Search in title

Search in title

Search in content

Search in content

Search in excerpt

Search in posts

Search in posts

Search in pages

Search in pages

Filter by Categories

DNattorney com blog

DNattorney.com blog

Uncategorised

Uncategorised

Fast Free Consultations

CALL US TOLL-FREE at 1-866-654-7129

Are you buying or selling domain names?

If you are interested in buying a domain name, a domain name portfolio, a website, or network of websites, very often a better price can be obtained from the seller by employing the services of an experienced Internet lawyer. We have acted for numerous domain name and website buyers and sellers, all over the world. We have acted in sales of single domain names from as little as $10,000.00 to sales of major domain name portfolios of over $10,000,000.00

Do you need help in a Domain Name Dispute?

We represent both domain name registrants and trademark owners in connection with Domain Name Disputes. Since 1999, we have represented hundreds of clients all over the world in Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) Complaints before the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the National Arbitration Forum (NAF), the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre (ADNDRC), and in Canadian Internet Registration Authority (CIRA) arbitrations before the British Columbia International Commercial Arbitration Centre (BCICAC) and Resolution Canada, as well as other online arbitration service providers.

Did cybersquatters take your domain name?

The first step in recovering your domain name from a cybersquatter is research. Whenever we are retained to assist you with recovering a domain name that rightfully belongs to you, we begin by thoroughly researching every aspect of the domain name and investigating the background of the cybersquatter. We employ unique methods that enable us to know who the cybersquatter is, what their intentions are, and the best method for recovering a particular domain name in the circumstances. In this manner, we always are able to provide you with the complete picture of the prospects for recovery and the issues that may be faced during the recovery process.

Who operates DNattorney.com?

Zak Muscovitch is a Canadian intellectual property lawyer. He is the founder of Domain Name Law Reports and has represented clients before domain name arbitrations in cases against companies like Google, Torstar, and Molson. Muscovitch was the founder and publisher of Domain Name Law Reports - a volunteer organization that helped lawyers research Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy and cases. Muscovitch has also released several studies. In 2010 he published a study following the case distribution among the panelists at National Arbitration Forum.